free-range politics, organic community

"Spoiler" candidates and "protest" votes: Sanders' evolution

This blog entry is partly to demonstrate that Sander's evolution as to for newer party candidates happened long before this primary and partly to amplify and correct some of my own prior posts (replies) on this subject. (And, yes, I do know that, for many, this entry is TLTR, but the subject still seems to be so controversial on this board, more than two months after Bernie endorsed Hillary.)

Sanders actually rose politically thanks to what some would call protest votes.
"My own preference would have been, and I would have rather have seen, Jesse Jackson run independently, third-party, outside of the Democratic Party," Sanders said at the time.

"Essentially, it's my view that the leadership of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are tied to big-money interests and that neither of these parties will ever represent the people in this country that are demanding the real changes that have to take place," he said.

Bernie – out of office for the first time in eight years – went to the Kennedy School at Harvard for six months and came back with a new relationship with the state’s Democrats. The Vermont Democratic Party leadership has allowed no authorized candidate to run against Bernie in 1990 (or since) and in return, Bernie has repeatedly blocked third party building. His closet party, the Democrats, are very worried about a left 3rd party forming in Vermont. In the last two elections, Sanders has prevented Progressives in his machine from running against Howard Dean, our conservative Democratic Governor who was ahead of Gingrich in the attack on welfare.”

“The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on…”

“After being safely elected in November of 1990, Bernie continued to support the buildup while seeking membership in the Democratic Congressional Caucus – with the enthusiastic support of the Vermont Democratic Party leadership. But, the national Democratic Party blew him off, so he finally voted against the war and returned home – and as the war began – belatedly claimed to be the leader of the anti-war movement in Vermont.” “Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

In 1992 he described Clinton as the ‘lesser of evils,’ (a justification he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an ‘avowed socialist’).

When Bernie began serving as a U.S. Representative, he joined the Democratic Caucus and also founded what was then titled the House Progressive Caucus, which he chaired for the first eight years of its existence. As the counterpunch article quoted above states, Sanders then said grudgingly that he would be voting for Clinton-Gore, a ticket of two founding members of the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1992, Clinton was running on, among other things, ending "welfare as we know it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 Sanders could have backed some newer party candidates running to the left of Clinton, but did not.

By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified endorsement. He has been a consistent ‘Friend of Bill’s’ from since 1992. One student I know worked on the Clinton Campaign in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the unauthorized Democratic candidate for his Congressional seat was kept out in the audience.”

....Sanders explained his endorsement of Clinton on grounds that his top priority was to prevent a Republican takeover of the White House. The incumbent president is "clearly preferable" to Bob Dole on a host of issues, the congressman argued then. Sanders further maintained that Nader was not a viable contender and could expect to get "at most 2 or 3 percent of the vote nationally."

In other words, in 1996, Sanders was saying the same kinds of things about Bill Clinton v. Bob Dole, as he is now saying about Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. In 2000, the Democratic ticket was Gore-Lieberman, again two founding members of the Democratic Leadership Council and again, Sanders supported the Democratic ticket, not Nader. Indeed, Sanders has shunned Nader since 2000 at the latest. (Nader nonetheless defends Sanders' decisions to run as a Democrat and to refrain from a independent challenge to Hillary.) In 2004, Sanders supported Kerry, not Nader or Cobb or other leftist candidates. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-07/nader-sanders-is-great-bu...http://bluenationreview.com/busted-bernie-disqualifies-hillary-but-suppo...

It all meant that when Vermont’s independent U.S. senator, Jim Jeffords, decided to retire in 2005, there was no question whom the (Democratic) party would recruit to retain the seat. They turned to another independent they now viewed as a de facto Democrat — Sanders.

“He had a fairly consistent voting record in the House, which did more to define him as Democrat than anything else,” said a former official with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on internal discussions. “There was a comfort level that he was a Democrat.” For his part, Sanders endorsed the Democratic candidate for his House seat. He also had a conversation with a young newer-party progressive who had been thinking, as Sanders had decades before, of mounting a challenge from the outside.

“Between some of the feedback from Sanders as well as others, it appeared I was not yet broadly enough supported to make the run,” said David Zuckerman, now a Vermont state senator campaigning for Sanders. Zuckerman describes Sanders as a political mentor for blazing a political trail where one could be both an ardent progressive and a loyal Democrat. “No doubt had I received his endorsement it would have been more likely that I would have run.”

Senators Obama and Kennedy campaigned for Sanders in Vermont. (This may have been more to get Obama known nationally than to help Sanders, but whatever: It happened.) As a Senator, Sanders continued to caucus with the House Progressive Caucus, now the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the only Senator so to do. He also caucused with the Senate Democratic Caucus and made a deal with Senate Democrats.

Sanders entered the race for the U.S. Senate on April 21, 2005, after Senator Jim Jeffords announced that he would not seek a fourth term. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders, a critical move as it meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who "votes with the Democrats 98% of the time".[115] Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont in March 2006.[116] Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.[117][118]
As an independent, Sanders worked out a deal with the Senate Democratic leadership in which he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters, except with permission from Democratic whip Dick Durbin (a request that is rarely made or granted). In return, he was allowed to keep his seniority and received the committee seats that would have been available to him as a Democrat; in 2013–14, he was chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (during the Veterans Health Administration scandal).[124][125] Sanders was free to vote as he pleased on policy matters, but almost always voted with the Democrats

Again, I mention this mostly because others have raised the issue of Bernie's deals with Democrats. I have no idea if his deals with Democrats contribute to his endorsing Democrats and I will not speculate. Moreover, it may not be either-or: He could genuinely believe that supporting Democrats is the best course for the country, but he is not averse to making the best deal for himself when promising to support Democrats or to vote with the Democratic Caucus.

In 2008, Sanders campaigned for Obama. In 2010 and 2011, many of us hoped that Sanders would either challenge Obama in a Democratic primary or run for President as an indie.

... But Sanders is adamant he will not run, even though he is harshly critical of Barack Obama. Sanders does not want to become a 2012 version of Ralph Nader, whose 2000 campaign is blamed by some for robbing Al Gore of a vital few percent and paving the way for George Bush. Walking to the Senate to vote, Sanders strides past other Senators and attracts a mini-gaggle of reporters.

But, he explains, he is not interested in the White House. "I would likely end up causing a right-wing extremist to be president of the United States. That is not something I would be happy to do," he said. Then he added for emphasis: "It would likely be a futile and losing campaign. That would not be too smart."

In 2014, as Sanders was contemplating a run for POTUS, New York Magazine interviewed him:

Soon we are discussing a major question in the would-be Bernie campaign: Would he run on a third-party ticket or as a Democrat? The choice seems obvious. Not even Ross Perot could afford to launch a meaningful third-party national campaign these days. Beyond that, you risk what Sanders calls “the Ralph Nader dilemma.”

If there’s one thing that really bugs Bernie, it is the specter of Nader, who earlier this year sent a bizarre “open letter” to the Burlington Free Press whining about how Sanders won’t return his calls. Discounting the argument that the two-party system might be a big part of the status quo he so deplores, Sanders slaps down his soup spoon.

Exactly one year before Election Day—on Nov. 8, 2015—Bernie Sanders was asked whether his agreement with Hillary Clinton on basic issues outweighed the conflicts that he proclaimed at every campaign appearance.

“And by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day.”

As a personal point, I have been on Bernie's donor email list for quite some time. Not once did he hint in any email I received that he would do anything but win the primary or, if he lost, negotiate for the best Democratic Party platform he could possibly get.

In light of all the above, claims that Bernie was beaten and/or threatened to make him endorse Hillary seem unrealistic. On July 12, 2016 and at the 2016 Democratic National Convention near the end of July, he did what he has done and espoused since 1996 and what he repeatedly said he would do in this year. And, as I have stated in prior replies, all the above aside, men in suits are covered from their collars to the soles of their shoes. No one hired to "muscle" Bernie would have left marks on Bernie's face to fuel speculation that Hillary or the DNC had a 75 year-old progressive United States Senator beaten to get his support.

If beating seems unlikely, was Bernie threatened to do what he has preached and done since 1996? I don't know, but I doubt it. If anything, he may have made assurances and gotten agreements about his speech, the platform, his role in the convention, etc. before July 12--a negotiation.

Much of the above info has been out there for years. So, I don't think his endorsing the 2016 Democratic nominee, as he has preached and done since 1996 constitutes a betrayal on that score to my thinking.

Do I love it? Not really, but shame on me for not doing this research in May 2014, rather than now. If I had, would I have still backed Sanders as generously and avidly--assuming he was always trying his best to win the primary? Most likely. In any event, at this point, the burden of proof is on people asserting either that (a) Bernie was threatened and/or beaten to make him support Hillary Clinton for President in 2016--as he did Bill Clinton in 1996 and every Democratic Presidential nominee since; or that (b) Bernie betrayed him, her, them or us.

Most of all, does any of this much matter at this juncture? If you plan to vote for Hillary, for the love of heaven, let it be because of you and not because of Bernie. If you want to vote for those left of Democrats, great: I will walk or run in that direction with you. Either way, Bernie's motives should not be the focus: Election Day is only a month and a half away.

I will always admire Bernie Sanders for the primary campaign he ran, and for standing up to so much of the corruption in Washington DC over his career. I know he doesn't have completely clean hands, and there are areas where I disagree strongly with him -- mainly in foreign affairs. But his campaign was an important step forward in reinventing a left politics in this country, and I think it remains a valuable achievement.

That said, I feel no loyalty to Bernie the man in his current efforts to placate the Clinton machine. He's on to a new phase of his career, and I feel no obligation to follow him there. The next step in what I'm interested in politically has yet to appear, and may not until the next recession hits.

helping the Green Party get to at least 5% for purposes of easier ballot access in 2020, among other things. I'm not in love with Greens, but I am in love with anything that may help but into the strangehold that Thing One and Thing Two have on U.S. politics.

... I'm more than a little curious about what he'll do post November 8. I'm sure it will depend on whether or not the D's take the Senate or not. Not really looking good right now, but there's a lot of time left between now and then.

Sanders always said throughout the campaign that: he considered Mme. Clinton a friend, that he would not engage on personal attacks against her, and that he would endorse her should she win.

However, I think that she could have been gracious, she might have delayed his endorsement till after the convention, allow his supporters to have their raucous demonstration--for young voters, demonstrations immediately after candidates names were put in nomination used to be a regular feature of conventions--and allow some of his backers to get some national attention. That, I suggest, is what the DSCC, DNC, and DCCC could not allow--the likes of Alan Greyson, Zephyr Teachout et al being given a national spotlight.

Then, there is the fact--I consider it fact--that she didn't win, she stole it.

He told us from the get go what the deal was and what the terms were, the fact WE are having trouble with his follow through is not his problem, it's OURS! Thank you for that one paragraph!
This entire run we all said we admire his integrity and walking the walk. Well, part of having integrity means you follow through on your promises. We might wish he had done it differently, but then, he would not have been true to his word. Should the deal have been null and void? I think so, but I don't have a say in that decision. And neither does anyone else(except maybe Jane). Time to see what's next AFTER the election 'cause we all Know we're fucked in the meantime.
Nice research, well presented. Thank you.
peace

I don't purport to know what is in the mind of any politician. Maybe Bernie was threatened or made some kind of deal beyond whatever deals he made in 1990 and 2004. I don't know and I don't imagine that my suspicions equal knowing.

I do know there is solid evidence for the proposition that, since at least 1992, Bernie has advocated for supporting the nominee of the Democratic Party and has himself supported the nominee of the Democratic Party, even to the point of asking newer party candidates not to challenge the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Did he, in 2016, do what he has advocated for and done since 2016, or did he receive threats or some kind of bribe? Based on the only solid evidence that does exist, I personally think that the latter is less likely than the former and I think a beating is the least likely, for reasons stated in my blog entry. However, I do not purport to know anything for certain. I can't know for certain. None of us can know for certain. I find it unsettling that so many of us are adamant that they can and do know for certain. No matter what one suspects, that is less important, to my mind, than realizing the difference between one's strong suspicion and fact. And no matter what one suspects about Bernie's motives, his motives should not be consuming so much oxygen at this moment:

Either way, Bernie's motives should not be the focus: Election Day is only a month and a half away.

That is the real point of the blog entry. I sought to inject more facts, thinking that might help people to keep their eyes on the prize. I did the opposite. So, I count this blog entry as a fail on my part.

would have done it. In fact, why would we? We were told our votes weren't needed, called names, accused of thuggery (in Nevada) and sexism. That's not even mentioning the DNC fiasco or the Berniebro meme.

I don't care what she'd could have done, I would never support her no matter what.

to nihilistic, much like the theory that every President after Kennedy is shown the Zapruder film and asked, "Any questions?"

After finishing the blog entry, I concluded that any feeling of disappointment I may have is my fault. If it is my fault, I can fix it, in this case, by researching the next candidate better sooner. However, if I and my peers do everything it is humanly possible for us to do and someone undoes it all with a threat, and no one ever finds out who or what, we may as well all lie down on the railroad tracks. I don't like that feeling.

are treated to a version of Ned Beatty's speech from the movie "Network," a prescient film if there ever was one. It's an elegant but fanciful conceit, since indoctrination probably occurs over years while attending the right schools and the right cocktail parties, etc.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

In a film course I took once, the instructor said of World War II Hollywood films, "Hitler thought he had to beat only the U.S. army. If he had known he would have to beat Jack Warner, too, he never would have invaded Poland."

World War II films fired up Americans. The Korean "Police Action" is our forgotten war, so I am not sure what, if anything, fired up Americans then. I was even surprised to learn that Ted Kennedy was a Korean War vet.

During the Vietnam War, folk singers and stand up comedians, on radio and TV and in their live performances fired up Americans against the war. Today, I don't know what would fire up Americans because all the above is happening and not much is happening, other that grumbling on the internet. I know even less what would impact the federal government. I do know that signing online petitions, participating in demonstrations and contacting one's Senators and Representative don't do the trick.

It really was not his endorsement, but the timing of his endorsement. He said from the beginning that he would endorse the nominee chosen by the convention.

But I would put nothing past the Clintons. They operate like the Mafia. We do know that Chuck Shumer was sent to tell Bernie he would lose all his committee positions if he did not endorse Clinton immediately. The Clintons wanted a coronation of a very unpopular candidate and we do know that they and the DNC did everything they could to rig the election, including vote totals in a number of states that were wildly out of the range of exit polling. In the same states the Republican vote totals and the exit polls were compatible.

I do not believe that Bernie ever intended to bring his delegates, who were not well heeled like Clintons, to the convention only to capitulate before they had their chance to support him. He said all along that he intended to take it all the way. Something happened that Monday that made him change his mind. He looked like a different man, some one who had been verbally is not physically beaten.

So the issue is not support of Clinton but being forced to capitulate early in the convention process. I do believe that Bernie is honestly afraid of Trump and sees Clinton as the lesser of two evils. Bernie is a politician who has been able to effectively work within the corrupt system that is Congress. His hands are not completely clean in that regard. But what he did do is expose the corruption in the Democratic party. For that I am grateful.

The lesson of all of this I learned is that the rot is to the core and I am not sure anything short of burning the system down is going to weed out how deeply embedded the corruption is within our government.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

But what he did do is expose the corruption in the Democratic party. For that I am grateful.

If he was a sheepdog, bet they including him were all shocked to find Hillary losing her ass to the little old cranky socialist from Vermont. If he had lost as might have been planned, the corruption would never have been exposed. We speak to Bernie's intent. This is something we will never know for certain.

That he ran to spread his message, never thinking initially that he had a shot at winning. Once it started to look as though he might win, he did his best, but it was too late. There was a NYT story to that effect. I did blog entries about sorting through my own confused feelings about it, if the story were true.

Essays such as this in which we may not always agree on everything are very educational for all of us in learning how people on the same side may not always draw the same conclusions from the information we have. Your essay has made me examine some of my own observations and conclusions more closely. And that is always a good thing.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

but I've come to a slightly different conclusion--mostly based upon a speech given by the soon-to-be Dem Minority Leader (?) Schumer, after the midterm 'shellacking' in 2014. (He is the chief strategist amongst the Dem Party Leaders, and has been for several cycles.) In his speech, he laid out the Dems strategy to win 2016. And, we have seen it come to pass.

Bear in mind, it's reported that Bernie is close to both Harry Reid (CNN), and Chuck Schumer (XM Radio, Reporters Roundtable). (He and Schumer both attended the James Madison High School in Brooklyn.) Also, the awarding and/or denying of Committee chairmanships is routinely based upon a lawmaker's actions, demonstrated loyalty, etc.--that's how Congress works. IOW, rightly or wrongly--"one hand, washes the other."

I am convinced that Leadership gave its blessing to Bernie's run, because they wanted to excite the Dem Party Base, and in their arrogance, never expected it to catch fire [as it did].

If folks noticed, all the Leadership was very complimentary of Bernie's efforts--until, toward the end, when he didn't call it quits soon enough to suit them. They consistently praised him for energizing, and possibly expanding the Base--i.e., youth and working-class voters.

Remember, Warren was appointed to a Leadership position in 2014, as a Dem Party liaison to the Progressive Community. IMO, Leadership was too afraid of her winning, to want/allow her to run. I think that the only reason she demurred as long as she did, was to keep the Base excited.

Gotta run--still have a headache, but I'll leave with one thought - I'll concede that, at times, there were 'mixed messages' sent by Bernie's Campaign. And, I didn't especially care for that.

For instance, on the stump, as late as June, he vowed to 'take it to the Convention.' Yet, the MSM reported several weeks before the Convention that his Campaign 'would not contest the nomination' (delegate count); and, about 10-14 days before the Convention, the MSM also reported that his staffers conceded that they would not contest the Party Platform--including the TPP Plank. I copied and pasted both of these 'announcements' in a comment over at EB at the time. Of course, they proved correct on both of these matters. Just as MSM Politico Reporter Glenn Thrush was 'spot on' when he reported that FSC's campaign planned to use Bernie to campaign for the millennial vote--especially, on college campuses.

In the end, though, I'm of the opinion that Bernie thought that broadening and strengthening the Dem Party was in the best interest of not only the Party, which he had caucused with for 25 years, but of the American People.

Again, thanks for your efforts to set the record straight.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

your comment. dkmich gave the alternatives that Bernie's motives may have been sincere or that Bernie ran as sheep dog and I responded that there may have been a middle ground in Bernie's motives. Are you saying your conclusion is sheep dog, or something close to it? That's what I thought at first, but then as I kept reading your post, I wasn't sure.

BTW, I think "take it to the convention " is ambiguous, especially with no context, other than whatever spin media gave his words. I never thought Bernie meant a floor fight. I do think he may have said ambiguous things after Super Tuesday to keep his supporters hopeful and donating.

If I was running to win, I would fight to the death. If I was robbed and couldn't get justice, I would have jumped ship screaming bloody murder and run with Stein. If I was running to win, the only thing I wouldn't do is quit - abruptly with a bull shit explanation. Until that can be explained to my satisfaction, the only explanation is that Bernie was a sheepdog. He wasn't suppose to win, and he was OK with that even if he wasn't happy about it.

to excite the base by talking about things like real universal health care and free public college, only to have their chosen one throw cold water on those ideas. How was that exciting to the base? It is exactly the opposite. It's what made me see what a sham the democrats are and turned me off ever voting for them. If that was their plan it was a really weird way to try to excite people for Hillary.

dk, I think you make a mistake in thinking that Bernie would do things the way you would do them. You might indeed be a person who would fight to the death, and go third party to take down Clinton and the dems at all costs, up to and including president trump if it came to that. But Bernie Sanders is not and has never been that kind of person or politician. He said from the beginning he would not be a spoiler and would support the democratic nominee in the end. And he said that knowing full well what they are. He just truly thinks trump and the republicans are worse.

For my own peace of mind, I had to come to some conclusions to the level of my own satisfaction. I have, but, ultimately, his motives don't matter at this point. Bernie is not the be all and end all of US politics. He is on his path and I am on a different one. Meanwhile, I am glad he at least showed/told many of us something different was possible.

…What Donald Trump did to the GOP Establishment — upending the playing board and tossing the Party Elites on their butts, forcing them to suck it up. And suck they did! The GOP Establishment were too terrified to cross the millions of People who drove the Populist, Donald Trump, to victory.

The Dems saw with horror that the People were clamoring for the Dem Populist, Bernie Sanders. At one point he was taking in more money than Hillary was. The Dem Bosses put their plans in motion even before the Primary voting began. They began coordinating with important Internet allies who they had quietly supported with grants over the years. They did the same with Black Leaders, who were co-opted by hand-feeding them government funds that already belonged to minorities, by law.

By the end of March, tens of thousands of Dems who were supporting the Populist over Hillary, were silenced on the Internet. They were banished by the major Democratic websites.

BUT back to Bernie, he was magnificent in the face of all that adversity. Even after they were exiled, he lifted his supporters until the end. Just as he promised. I don't have any feelings about his transition to full support for Hillary. But then, he could never represent me. I admire Bernie's Domestic schtick, which changed the game for the better in the US, enlightening just enough people to keep it going. As for my energy, I'm a single issue activist, adamantly anti-Neocon. And Bernie is a dual-loyalist.

My compliments belong to the author. He left the world more informed that he found it, with considerable precision.

1. Receiving a personal threat is different from perceiving a threat to the nation and the world from Republicans generally and especially from Donald Trump.

2. It doesn't need to be a threat. It could be a promise or a negotiated deal, as Bernie made with the Vermont Democratic Party in 1990, when he ran for the House and in 2004, when they recruited him to run for the Senate.

Great essay. You convinced me I'm right. Bernie was a sheepdog. I was always quite adamant. If he wasn't in it to win, I would rather he just stay away. At this juncture, I don't believe he ever planned or wanted to win. If he was in it to win it, he would have gone to the mat instead of quitting. If I had known he was a sheepdog, I wouldn't have given him a dime under the premise that I did.

There is nothing I need to know about the candidates on the Michigan presidential ballot. The most distasteful vote I could make would be a vote for one of the duopolies. My most strategic vote to destroy the duopoly is probably a vote for Trump as painful as that thought is. The most moral and second least impactful vote I could make would be to vote for Jill Stein, and the least impactful would be to stay home.

Whether or not Bernie was a sheep dog, the mission of the media was to make sure Hillary got more votes than Bernie. And, whether it was broadcast media or print media, they did that job very well, although they were not subtle.

The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

However, at this point, I think it really is time to move on. November 8 is Election Day. I really would love to see Greens get at least 5% of the popular vote and they're not there yet. There's a lot of work ahead and not long to do it. Maybe at a future time, it will become relevant to me again.

Bernie shouldn't be put on a pedestal. He did a public service by running in the primary, but when it comes to American politics, nobody's hands are clean. He is likely getting something out of his support for Hillary, and it seems to be enough that he's willing to trade his reputation for it.

@cloudy_skies
I imagine that I do not do that, but I did it with Obama in 2008. There was not a thing about Obama that disappointed me eventually that I had not read or heard during the 2008 primary, but, during that primary, I would dispute every negative comment about him. "Never again!" I solemnly promised my self, but I did close to the same thing with Bernie--not quite as bad as with Obama, so there was some improvement. There's that, at least.

Bernie shouldn't be put on a pedestal. He did a public service by running in the primary, but when it comes to American politics, nobody's hands are clean. He is likely getting something out of his support for Hillary, and it seems to be enough that he's willing to trade his reputation for it.

Dkmich, Please vote for Trump. I will vote for Trump with joy. I gave Bernie campaign about $500 (every week $27). I thought he would fight for 99%. Now, he is part of Clinton machine working for Wall Street. Trump is left of Clinton. anti-war and anti-TPP.

I think it's important to distinguish among (1) what we know because of hard evidence, (2)what we strongly suspect to be so; and things like rumors.

I would put nothing past the Clintons, either. However, that does not mean they actually did anything like threaten Jane Sanders or Bernie's grandkids, which I have read on this board more than once.

We do know that Chuck Shumer was sent to tell Bernie he would lose all his committee positions if he did not endorse Clinton immediately.

I don't think we know that at all. I read something vaguely like that on this board.

Reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen says Bernie Sanders was threatened with the loss of his ranking position on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee if he did not endorse Hillary with enthusiasm.

The only original source of this comment seems to be a Wayne Madsen, who works for the his own blog, waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20160727 He does not seem to have a particularly good reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen

Why would anyone tell a blogger with an iffy reputation, and only that blogger, info that potentially damaging? If you want the info out and believed, you'd leak it to someone with a wider readership and a more credible rep, I would think. If you don't want it out and believed, you would not leak it at all. And who would have told him? Hillary's camp? Shumer's camp? Bernie? Why?

You cannot read the article about the alleged threat at his blog unless you are a subscriber. I am not and do not intend to become one. However, other blogs have quoted him as saying that Schumer threatened Bernie with loss of his position as ranking member of the Veteran's Committee. Problem is, Bernie is the former chair of that committee, not the current ranking member.

Committee assignments

Committee on the Budget (Ranking Member)
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy
Subcommittee on National Parks
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, (Ranking Member)
Committee on Veterans' Affairs (former Chair)

That's obviously from Sanders' wiki. His own official Senate page doesn't show him as ranking member of any committee at present.

Environment and Public Works »

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is responsible for dealing with matters related to the environment and infrastructure.
Energy and Natural Resources »

The United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over matters related to energy and nuclear waste policy, territorial policy, native Hawaiian matters, and public lands.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions »

The United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) generally considers matters relating to these issues. Its jurisdiction extends beyond these issues to include several more specific areas, as defined by Senate rules.
Budget »

The United States Senate Committee on Budget was established by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It is responsible for drafting Congress's annual budget plan and monitoring action on the budget for the Federal Government. The committee has jurisdiction over the Congressional Budget Office.
Veterans' Affairs »

The United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs considers matters relating to the compensation of veterans, life insurance issued on account of service in the Armed Forces, national cemeteries, pensions of all wars, readjustment of servicemen to civil life, and veterans' hospitals and medical care.
Joint Economic Committee »

I don't think it's a matter of modesty that he does not list himself as ranking member: His constitutents, indeed all Americans, have a right to correct info, certainly on something this basic.

The Clintons wanted a coronation of a very unpopular candidate

Very true, but it looked to me very much like most of the entire Democratic Party also wanted her coronation, too. Almost every local, state and federal Democratic politician holding office endorsed her and we know from hacked emails and other solid evidence that the DNC sure wanted her.

and we do know that they and the DNC did everything they could to rig the election, including vote totals in a number of states that were wildly out of the range of exit polling. In the same states the Republican vote totals and the exit polls were compatible.

I strongly suspect a great deal of what you say is true, as do others, who have filed lawsuits. However, I would not say we actually know it to be so. Also, at different times, each of Bernie Sanders and Jane Sanders has cut against it. Bernie said something like it wasn't dishonest; it was just dumb. And much later, Jane said that the numbers were just too big: Hillary clearly won or they would have protested. So, unless and until a court decides or something more dispositive comes out, I think this is a strong suspicion, albeit there is some evidence it is true.

I am not sure what you mean by capitulation. Bernie said all along that he would fight for a platform. He did and he now says it is the most liberal platform in Democratic history. I am not sure he is correct about that, but, he seems to have accomplished what he said he would do. As far as his saying he would fight to the end, I think the end he meant was the platform, not the last day of the convention. Besides, he endorsed her July 12, before the convention started.

I have read on this board many times about how he looked when he endorsed her and at the convention, but I cannot go by that. Anyone of a million things could account for how he looked and I saw both him and his wife looking downright euphoric at times. I am not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I don't know what the way someone looks at certain times during an endorsement speech or during a convention proves.

I do believe that Bernie is honestly afraid of Trump and sees Clinton as the lesser of two evils. Bernie is a politician who has been able to effectively work within the corrupt system that is Congress. His hands are not completely clean in that regard. But what he did do is expose the corruption in the Democratic party. For that I am grateful.

The lesson of all of this I learned is that the rot is to the core and I am not sure anything short of burning the system down is going to weed out how deeply embedded the corruption is within our government.

[The One Hundred-Fourteenth United States Congress is the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2015 to January 3, 2017, during the final two years of Barack Obama's presidency.]

Unless, Bernie stepped down, due to his run. It's possible, I suppose, that this chart in outdated. My impression has been, however, that he's retained this seat.

I will be watching like a hawk to see what legislation comes out of the Budget Committee, regardless of who the Chair/Ranking Member is. We are a bit concerned--since it affected my Family adversely--that the Administration will force more neoliberal legislation, like the partial privatization of the VA health care system, when Bernie chaired the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. After all, what would PBO have to lose?

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

I posted both the wikipedia list and the list on Bernie's own senate.gov page and I noted that the two are not not the same. However, the point was that, according to a site quoting Madsen, Madsen claimed that Schumer had threatened to take away Bernie's status as ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and neither wikipedia's list nor Bernie's list show Bernie as ranking member for that committee.

Are you saying Madsen was correct or that something in my post is wrong?

and I'm aware that more than a few in the MSM consider him to be a flat-out conspiracy theorist. He's been in the thick of one scandal after the other, since at least the 1990's, or early 2000's, IIRC.

Now, I don't follow his writing/reporting, at all; I'm simply stating that I've seen numerous claims about him which jibe with your Wikipedia reference.

So, on that point, I'm affirming that I've read claims about Madsen, similar to the ones that you've uncovered.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regarding possible threats directed at Bernie, regarding his Committee assignment--I'm definitely not privy to any inside information. From my reading, as I stated, I was under the impression that Bernie remained in that post--Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee--even as he ran in the Primary.

Also, as I've stated, it doesn't seem a far-fetched, or irregular practice for Party Leadership to withhold or bestow these type of assignments, based upon a lawmaker's ability, past legislative activities, various actions, including demonstrated Party loyalty, etc. Which is not to say that I approve of it--just that I've understood that this is how things work in Congress.

Earlier, I was in a hurry, so I quickly Googled Wikipedia for a Budget Committee entry, instead of taking the pains to locate the official Senate website for that Committee.

Anyhoo, according to the Budget Committee website, Bernie is still the ranking member.

So, yes--I was stating that I 'believe' that Bernie is still ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, unless he has recently had that assignment taken from him.

[Edit: , replaced ;]

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

only his status in the Veteran's. That is the only one Madsen mentioned. I did post that Bernie's Senate website did not show him as ranking member of any committee, but that was more of an aside. I didn't mean to emphasize it.

I supported and donated to Bernie's presidential campaign knowing that his chances of winning were near zero, knowing that he would endorse Clinton if/when he lost, and knowing that when that happened, Bernie and I would part ways because I won't vote for or support Hillary Clinton.

I supported his campaign because I felt he was saying what needed to be said, shedding light on important information, and opening people's eyes to what is going on with this country and within the democratic party. I still think that, and do not regret my support or donations.

I knew however that in the end, Bernie believes in working with the democrats to get as much good out of them as he can, and that he would stay true to his word, and to his history, and support their nominee.

He can urge support for Clinton all he wants. That's his choice and one I knew he would make. I happen to disagree with him and won't take his advice, but I still respect him for his long career of real effort to make things better and do the best possible thing within the constraints of politics. I could never do even a tiny fraction of what he's accomplished in his life, and I think he's pretty awesome. He's wrong about electing Hillary, in my view, but I fully understand why he believes it's important to avoid a president Trump and that he doesn't want his legacy to be that he was in any way responsible for making such a thing happen.

which does not have a search function that I can find was reporting last spring to the effect that Schumer and his DSCC had offered Sanders I believe a chairmanship if he would not intervene in the Florida senate race in favor of Greyson or in the Ohio race in favor of whomever it was who ran against Ted Strictland. We do know that Schumer, Wasserman-Schultz, the DSCC and the DCCC are doing everything in their power to install compliant blue dogs and conservadems in congress this year. What I think, purely my own speculative opinion, is that Schumer, the senator from Tel Aviv, is trying to line up reliable votes for his, Clinton's and Netanyahu's war in the Middle East plans.

As for Wayne Madsen, he has of course to be read with a few grains of salt, just as any reporter does. With no reporter or opinionator, from any organization or point of view, no matter what their reputation, should we turn off our own faculties of critical intelligence. That said, I find Madsen to be mostly worth reading. As an independent, he does seem to be able to find out tidbits overlooked by reporters who have to answer to editors who have to answer to owners. How many companies is it that own American media, 5 or something like that?

For what it might be worth, I think the DSCC et al, seriously overestimated their clout with Sander's supporters. Furthermore, it never seems to have occurred to them not to disrespect an old man, to let the old guy have some dignity. The whole endorsement show could and should have been managed much better. Sanders might be willing to swallow the insults inflicted on him but that does not mean the rest of us have to take them.

Schumer and his DSCC had offered Sanders I believe a chairmanship if he would not intervene in the Florida senate race in favor of Greyson or in the Ohio race in favor of whomever it was who ran against Ted Strictland.

Being a minority leader, Schumer has no ability to offer a chair. It's possible that he offered a ranking member position.

I have the same comment about this as I had about the possibility/rumor that Schumer threatened to take away a ranking member position from Sanders. That is the prerogrative of a minority or majority leader. But shame on anyone who would sell out out Americans for a personal perk like a chair or ranking member position of a frickin committee.

We do know that Schumer, Wasserman-Schultz, the DSCC and the DCCC are doing everything in their power to install compliant blue dogs and conservadems in congress this year.

Not only this year. Recruiting only center right Democrats and striving to protect center right incumbents has been Democratic policy for years.

What I think, purely my own speculative opinion, is that Schumer, the senator from Tel Aviv, is trying to line up reliable votes for his, Clinton's and Netanyahu's war in the Middle East plans.

Anything is possible.

That said, I find Madsen to be mostly worth reading.

My post made no judgment about Madsen. His reputation (please read his wiki), however, was relevant for the reasons I stated in my reply to gulfgal. Even if his poor reputation were totally undeserved, the fact that he has a poor reputation was relevant to what I posted about him. Assuming Madsen did say, however, that Schumer threatened Sanders with loss of a position Sanders does not hold, that is beyond sloppy.

I think the DSCC et al, seriously overestimated their clout with Sander's supporters.

Yep. They also overestimated Sanders' clout with Sanders' supporters. Apparently, independent thought has become a foreign concept to Democrats. Somewhere, Will Rogers is laughing whenever he gets quoted.

this time he made an agreement with US. And I'm not going to rehash all the ways when he should have been trying to win the nomination by standing up for himself and his supporters, and all the 'Better Way' and "taking it all the way to Philly" crap or the amazing amount of money that people, rather than corporations or PACs, gave to the guy. He just shouldn't have up and capitulated way before the convention and without ANY WARNING at all. His supporters deserved more. They deserved a real debate and that included mentioning emails and other (as it turns out) VERY relevant issues, like her past record. I certainly hope he doesn't expect millions to listen to him again.

Again, this time he had a deal with us. Don't care about the Democrats and or his past opportunism.

I believe the strong feelings on both sides come from the fact that many of us, including me, did put Sanders on a pedestal, something the left is very prone to do, especially when it backs a candidate for POTUS. I still think a very few people like Lee, Sanders, Capuano, Grijalva and Ellison are the best in federal government. But that does not mean any of them are perfect. We forget that making deals and compromising is the only way any of them can get anything at all done in Congress. It's what they know.